Injin Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 As long as they don't refuse your definition of what they choose to define as wealth eh?... It's not possible to refuse it and remain rational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) Steve you seem to have unilaterally decided that talking about wealth creation is a nonsense and all any individual should be concerned about is transfer of wealth to themselves, the accumulation of wealth. But this is not what the OP wished to discuss. As I recall, he wished to compare and contrast the private and public sectors. Specifically he wanted to quash the lazy thinking which classifies all public sector activities as wealth destroying. This begs the question: "how is wealth created". So either try to address the questions in the OP or start a new thread where you can peacock around to your heart's content with Injin, Stars and whoever else is interested. This is not about peacocking just yield. I am calling into question the definition posited by others on here that only includes generation since there is no reason at all to suppose that humans will necessarily (or are even capable of) take the wider implications into account for wealth of the rest of humanity. In some circumstances they may, in some they may not. If these kind of nonsensical, non-falsifiable statements of faith are not made then I will, of course, have nothing to respond to Edited June 1, 2010 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 The next question is, on what basis do you consider your central idealogical belief to have a claim to the truth more than any other central ideological belief. Everyone agrees coercion is wrong, because coercion is objectively wrong Take a person that doesn't agree that coercion is wrong, would it be ok to coerce this person until he agreed with me? Would it be ok for me to coerce everyone into living in a neoliberal, capitalist dystopia? See - even you agree that coercion is wrong So where is the disagreement? ..these are values we both share People who say coercion is not wrong are always either lying or malfunctioning, because the statement is a logical contradiction akin to saying "I give you permission to force me" Indeed, your central ideological belief is hardly original is it? It would appear that from this belief you appear to have ended with free market capitalism. And yet, for others, it leads them to an entirely different ideological end place. On what objective basis do you make the claim that your ideological end place is the right one? The right to be left alone (which comes from no coercion) . Property comes out of this and trade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 This is not about peacocking just yield. I am calling into question the definition posited by others on here that only includes generation since there is no reason at all to suppose that humans will necessarily (or are even capable of) take the wider implications into account for wealth of the rest of humanity. In some circumstances they may, in some they may not. If these kind of nonsensical, non-falsifiable statements of faith are not made then I will, of course, have nothing to respond to They can do that individually but they can't also say it's true for humanity as a whole. Why the resistance? Steal away, just stop with the crap moral justification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) They can do that individually but they can't also say it's true for humanity as a whole. Why the resistance? Steal away, just stop with the crap moral justification. Why should any individual human give a sh*t about what is or is not "true" for humanity as a whole injin? Edited June 1, 2010 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Why should any individual human give a sh*t about what is or is not "true" for humanity as a whole injin? I have no idea, nor have I said they should. if you don't care about others opinions, why not just say so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Everyone agrees coercion is wrong, because coercion is objectively wrong Take a person that doesn't agree that coercion is wrong, would it be ok to coerce this person until he agreed with me? Would it be ok for me to coerce everyone into living in a neoliberal, capitalist dystopia? See - even you agree that coercion is wrong So where is the disagreement? ..these are values we both share People who say coercion is not wrong are always either lying or malfunctioning, because the statement is a logical contradiction akin to saying "I give you permission to force me" The right to be left alone (which comes from no coercion) . Property comes out of this and  trade Does everyone agree that coercion is wrong? The material evidence of the behaviour of many humans would beg to differ... In anticipation of your response, on what basis does your definition of such people being psychologically multifunctional be of any material relevance to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Does everyone agree that coercion is wrong? The material evidence of the behaviour of many humans would beg to differ... In anticipation of your response, on what basis does your definition of such people being psychologically multifunctional be of any material relevance to them? let us say that - For each human that says coercion is right, there is at least one human that says it wrong. Add an atom bomb here and ther and coercion is always wrong on a "raised hands" basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) I have no idea, nor have I said they should. if you don't care about others opinions, why not just say so? Oh but I do injin. Given that you have admitted that you have no idea why humans should give a sh*t about the rest of humanity, on what basis do you expect humans to be ever capable or willing to take such considerations into account when deciding whether to generate their own wealth or transfer it from others (by force if they wish and the opportunity affords) Edited June 1, 2010 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Does everyone agree that coercion is wrong? The material evidence of the behaviour of many humans would beg to differ... When was the last time you saw somebody agree to being coerced? People always think it is wrong. In anticipation of your response, on what basis does your definition of such people being psychologically multifunctional be of any material relevance to them? I don't understand the question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Oh but I do injin. Given that you have admitted that you have no idea why humans should give a sh*t about the rest of humanity, on what basis do you expect humans to be ever capable or willing to take such considerations into account when deciding whether to generate their own wealth or transfer it from others (by force if they wish and the opportunity affords) I don't have any sch aim or ideal. I'm just saying that if your definition o fwealth is purely persoanl, say so and stop claiming it's univeral. Steal, just don't say you are doing anyone a favour when you shorten thir lives and make the rest of humanity slightly shittier by your actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) let us say that - For each human that says coercion is right, there is at least one human that says it wrong. Add an atom bomb here and ther and coercion is always wrong on a "raised hands" basis. You miss the material evidence that, unlike sad b*stards who wish to debate such weighty moral issues in the middle of the night on an internet forum, most humans don't care about whether an action is morally "right" or not. They merely act in ways that optimise outcomes. That is all. Sometimes this is by coercion, sometimes not. Sometimes it takes wider implications into account, sometimes not. The abstract morality of such actions is, for most humans, a complete irrelevance. Or, at best, an after the fact justification for the consumption of others. Edited June 1, 2010 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 When was the last time you saw somebody agree to being coerced? People always think it is wrong. I don't understand the question Of course coerceess don't like the diea of coercion. However, I think you may find that coercers tend to have a somewhat different perspective... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 You miss the material evidence that, unlike sad b*stards who wish to debate such weighty moral issues in the middle of the night on an internet forum,  most humans don't make care about whether an action is morally "right" or not. They merely act in ways that optimise outcomes. that is all. Sometimes this is by coercion, sometimes not. Sometimes it takes wider implications into account,  sometimes not. The abstract morality of such actions is, for most humans, a complete irrelevance. Or, at best, an after the fact justification for the consumption of others. I didn't say anyone cared. or that I was mr popular. I said that for every winner in a coercive situation there must be at least one loser. That being the case, coercion is always negative from the point of view of humanity as a whole. Which is fine, you can still have coercion, you just can't say it's a benefit to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Steve, Stars and Injin can you each in your own words: 1. describe a wealth creating activity (in summary terms) and contrast this with i) a wealth destroying activity and ii) with a wealth transferring activity. 2. describe what public services, if any, are required to support the wealth creating activity. 3. briefly offer a concise and clear alternative framework to consider this question if you don't see it classified as in 1 and 2 above. I'd appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) Of course coerceess don't like the diea of coercion. However, I think you may find that coercers tend to have a somewhat different perspective... Not really in truth By claiming that it would be wrong to coerce him, the coercer logically conceeds a coercee's point Edited June 1, 2010 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 I don't have any sch aim or ideal. I'm just saying that if your definition o fwealth is purely persoanl, say so and stop claiming it's univeral. Steal, just don't say you are doing anyone a favour when you shorten thir lives and make the rest of humanity slightly shittier by your actions. My definition of wealth is access to and/or control of material resources. How that wealth is distributed is the question. For me, by and large, this is best done by free trade. However, since I am realistic enough to know that not all humans will trade freely but will, instead steal, there is a requirement for some external force that restricts this tendency to take short cuts in some humans. This, though, leads to the thorny issue of how such a force is kept under control and does not become the biggest thief of all. I am also perfectly content to accept that my definition of what is morally right has no more claim to reality than any other claim. You see injin, reality is really messy, doesn't give a shit about yours or my ideological proclivities and isn't anywhere nearly as simple as you would like to think.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Not really in truth By claiming that it would be wrong to coerce him, the coercer logically conceeds a coercee's point Whilst ending up with his stuff.... I think you will find he may be able to live with the moral inconsistency... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Steve, Stars and Injin can you each in your own words: 1. describe a wealth creating activity (in summary terms) and contrast this with i) a wealth destroying activity and ii) with a wealth transferring activity. 2. describe what public services, if any, are required to support the wealth creating activity. 3. briefly offer a concise and clear alternative framework to consider this question if you don't see it classified as in 1 and 2 above. I'd appreciate it. I can try. 1) A wealth creating activity is one where raw materials are turned into something else in such a way as the reciever gains and no one else loses. A wealth destroying activity is anything whereby someone involuntarily gives up something - time, energy, beer, whatever. 2) There is no public. 3) Stop attacking others to get what you want. Job done. Paradise on earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Whilst ending up with his stuff.... I think you will find he may be able to live with the moral inconsistency... It's also a logical inconsistency, but I agree. Some people care about truth, others don't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 My definition of wealth is access to and/or control of material resources. How that wealth is distributed is the question. For me, by and large, this is best done by free trade. However, since I am realistic enough to know that not all humans will trade freely but will, instead steal, there is a requirement for some external force that restricts this tendency to take short cuts in some humans. This, though, leads to the thorny issue of how such a force is kept under control and does not become the biggest thief of all. I am also perfectly content to accept that my definition of what is morally right has no more claim to reality than any other claim. You see injin, reality is really messy, doesn't give a shit about yours or my ideological proclivities and isn't anywhere nearly as simple as you would like to think.... Your difintion is cobblers. We all have access to resources by default. Wealth is not distributed, it is created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 I didn't say anyone cared. or that I was mr popular. I said that for every winner in a coercive situation there must be at least one loser. That being the case, coercion is always negative from the point of view of humanity as a whole. Which is fine, you can still have coercion, you just can't say it's a benefit to everyone. Coercion is indeed negative from the point of humanity as a whole as long as you define "negative" as humanity-level wealth-destruction which in turn requires that you actually give a shit about humanity as a whole. What has this got to do with predicting how humans will actually behave in the real world and, if they don't behave in a way that is of benefit to humanity as a whole (take a look around), what do you propose to do about it? Surely you don't propose to force people to be nice to each other do you?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) Your difintion is cobblers. We all have access to resources by default. Wealth is not distributed, it is created. Do you have access to that farmer's field of wheat. Do you have access to that field of oil 3 miles down? Do you have access to my television? Your definition is cobblers... And, as ever, I note you have not addressed the central question posed in the post... Oh, and as an aside, if wealth is not distributed injin, what is money? Edited June 1, 2010 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Coercion is indeed negative from the point of humanity as a whole as long as you define "negative" as humanity-level wealth-destruction which in turn requires that you actually give a shit about humanity as a whole. What has this got to do with predicting how humans will actually behave in the real world and, if they don't behave in a way that is of benefit to humanity as a whole (take a look around), what do you propose to do about it? Surely you don't propose to force people to be nice to each other do you?... When you ocerce others, it's wrong, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 Just yield, I have read your post and will reply to it I promise. Need to get to bed now though, will do so in the morning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.